According to him, the Constitution does not allow the IEBC to verify or retally results at the national level, yet this has become a common practice during every election.
Omtatah says his concerns are not new. For years, he has questioned the huge role the National Tallying Centre plays in shaping the final presidential results.
But now, he wants the High Court to make a final declaration: that the national tallying system should not exist at all.
Speaking through his petition filed in court, Omtatah argues that the Constitution gives a very clear breakdown of how votes should be counted and confirmed.
Under Articles 86 and 138, the process is designed to be simple, transparent, and final at the constituency level. Votes are supposed to be counted at each polling station, then added up at the constituency office.
After that, the constituency returning officer announces and signs the final presidential results for that area. Omtatah insists that once this is done, there should be no further verification.
According to him, the current system gives the national tallying team powers that the Constitution never gave them.
He argues that Section 39 of the Elections Act — the law that introduced national verification — goes against the supreme law of the land.
In his view, Parliament created confusion when it passed a law that opens doors for duplication of work, delayed announcements, and even possible manipulation of results.
Omtatah also points out that the IEBC Chairperson’s power to declare a president-elect before receiving all constituency results shows that constituency results are meant to be final. To him, this proves that the National Tallying Centre is unnecessary and unconstitutional.
The petition also questions the role of the Attorney General. Omtatah says the Attorney General should have advised the government earlier that these practices are unlawful.
He also reminds Parliament that they have a duty to protect the Constitution, not change the election process in ways that weaken transparency.
In his filing, Omtatah notes that the National Tallying Centre has played a controversial role in the 2013, 2017, and 2022 elections.
He says the disputes seen in those years show why Kenya must stick to what the Constitution says instead of relying on a system that creates mistrust among citizens.
The Senator wants the High Court to interpret Section 39 of the Elections Act and state clearly whether the IEBC is allowed to verify or alter results after they have been declared at the constituency level. He also wants the court to decide whether the national tallying process fits within the constitutional design for presidential elections.
If the court agrees with him, Kenya’s election process could change significantly. It would mean that future presidential results would be finalized at constituency tallying centres without any extra national-level confirmation.
It would also reduce the power and responsibility placed on the IEBC Chairperson, shifting more authority to constituency returning officers.
The case now puts the spotlight once again on Kenya’s election laws and the long-running debate about transparency, trust, and the role of technology and national tallying systems in delivering credible results.
0 Comments